Having examined the general interpretation of oppida, this chapter
is taking a look at the available information about the Dünsberg
in particular, and of its surrounding area.

Setting of the Dünsberg

Topography

Northwest of Gießen (Hesse), we find several hill formations, the
highest (497.5 m) and largest is the Dünsberg (see figure
Grave Mounds).
This hill is a widely visible
landmark for the region and its top is occupied by the oppidum.

The Dünsberg is one of the outposts of the Rheinisches
Schiefergebirge. The ground consists mainly of silicious slate, but in
the east of rubble and loam. The hill has several foothills: the Kleiner
Dünsberg with 385 m in the north and in the west the Vorderer and
Hinterer Eulenkopf (Reeh, 2001: 3).
The distance to the river Lahn
in the south and east is about 9 km
(Schlott, 1999: 8).

Trade routes

The river Lahn might be seen as one of the trade routes for the site.
Reeh (p. 292-298) argues that some old
ways are passing the Dünsberg,
for example the
Weinstraße, leading from Mainz via Gießen further to the north;
the Rennweg coming from Koblenz, passing the Lahn north of Gießen
and leading further to the west, the Hohe Straße coming from
Cologne passing Herborn and continuing to the southwest; and the Koblenzer
Straße, which is beginning near Koblenz and ends in Wetzlar.
These roads pass the oppidum in some distance, but they would
still provide accessible trade
routes for it.

Other monuments

La Tène graves

To the west of the Dünsberg in the Krodorfer Forst, about 1 km from the lowest
fortification, several La Tène D2 graves were found. The graves
were discovered, because of 10-15 cm high rectangular or round banks,
which are enclosing the cremation graves. These features, called
Grabgärten1, stand out from the forest ground,
and were already partly destroyed by grave robbers.
(Schulze-Forster, 1997;
1998).
More Grabgärten exist in the Krodorfer Forst, but were not
excavated.
The phenomenon is well known in the regions surrounding the River
Lahn and the River Rhine. The Grabgärten date to the Late La
Tène and the Roman Period (Römische Kaiserzeit)
(Schulze-Forster, 1997).
The cemetery in the Krodorfer Forst contains about a dozen cremations,
which fits into the prevailing picture of Late La Tène funerary
practice of small dispersed cemeteries
(Schulze-Forster, 1998).

Burial mounds

Besides these graves, which are contemporary with the late
settlement phase on the Dünsberg, we find a concentration of grave mounds in
the region. Most of them are south or south west of the
Dünsberg (see figure Grave Mounds).
Reeh (p. 45)
lists 42 grave mounds2, of which 7 are
under 60 cm high while the remaining 35 are over 1 m high. Only one of
the grave mounds has undergone modern excavation, unveiling finds
from the Late Bronze Age (Reeh, 2001: 45).
Reeh (p. 45) also
states that the mounds appear to be close to the roads in the area.

Roman sites

Only 6 kilometers to the south (see figure Grave Mounds)
is the site of Waldgirmesa Roman civil administrative site, which
was built just 10 years after the destruction of the oppidum
on the Dünsberg, and was given up 9 years later3(Rittershofer, 2000).

Also to the south runs the Limes. At its closestwhen enclosing the
fertile area of the Wetterauit is only 18 km away from the
Dünsberg (Reeh-2001: 4).

Springs

A great amount of springs have their source on the Dünsberg. In
the west they appear at a height of 360 m, but in the north and
east they are closer to the foot of the hill. It is likely that there
once were more springs which also bore a greater amount of water than they do
nowadays (Reeh, 2001: 14).
Three of the springs have been
incorporated into the oppidum, they are the Schulborn to the
north, the Grinchesweiher to the east and the spring near the
Hinteren Eulenkopf in the west (see figure Dünsberg Map)
(Reeh, 2001: 142).

Further springs have Strahlenwälle pointing towards them, these
are the springs east of the Kleiner Dünsberg and north and east of the
Schulborn (Reeh, 2001: 142, fig. 42).
The streams east and south of the
Grinchesweiher and north of the Schulborn are
flanked by ramparts, while the spring of the Wilsbach in the south and
the springs in the west have no Strahlenwälle associated
with them.

The springs had a wooden frame to keep the water clean. Some of these
wooden structures were excavated in 1907. One of the biggest is the
Schulborn. In the administrative report from 1907
(Verwaltungsbericht, 1907),
which mentions its excavation, it is said:

Herrmann mentions that the
bigger structure was 13.08-13.50 m by
4.20-4.55 m and that not only the smaller (and supposedly earlier)
basin but also several wells were overlayed by it. Even though the
chronological sequence (the bigger structure
being younger than the smaller one) might be questionable. Only a
modern excavation and, if possible, dendrochronological examinations
could clarify these questions.

Nevertheless following the excavations a model of the Schulborn was
built for the Museum in Wiesbaden
(Reeh, 2001: 144).

In 1908 further springs were excavated. All of them contained wooden
structures similar to the ones found in the Schulborn,

The Grinchesweiher was examined in 1909, but not completely as the
installation proved to be too extensive. Again the report about the
excavation is short and not very detailed
(Reeh, 2001: 146).

Iron ore

In the west of the Dünsberg iron ores were mined. This certainly
happened in the middle ages and during modern times, but the resources
might have been important in earlier times as well.
Dehn (p. 260)
thinks that there could be a connection between the iron ore deposits
and the ramparts, which include the Kleinen Dünsberg together
with the Strahlenwälle (R and S) near the Hinteren Eulenkopf.

Jacobi (p. 34) also considers
early use of these ore deposits. He
regards the hoards of iron ingots and the great amount of tools as
indications for iron working and iron production in the area, whereby
the finished goods might have played an important role in trade.

Slag has been found in the vicinity of the oppidum, especially
in the west and the north
(Reeh, 2001: 105), but no attempt of
dating these finds has been made so far.

Overview of previous research

Descriptions

The oldest references to the oppidum on the Dünsberg are
descriptions of borders dating to the 16th
century4(Reeh, 2001;
,Schlott, 1999).
Descriptions of the ramparts occurred in the 19th an early 20th
century (Reeh, 2001):

1844

Dieffenbach described the two higher banks after a
survey, 1878 all three banks are mentioned and roughly measured by
Gareis and Zöppritz.

1860

In an article about a millstone found on the
Dünsberg Dickorè also denotes the kind of ramparts encountered
on the hill, and mentions the Schulborn.

1879

The Dünsberg was mentioned
by Cohausen in his article about
defensive walls of the region. 1904 the forester K. Behlen gives
the fullest description of the hill. Besides his depiction of the
banks and the identification of the Strahlenwälle, he suggests
that the oldest walls were on the top of the hill, and the youngest
ones on the bottom. He also detects the house platforms, and draws the
first plan of the fortifications on the Dünsberg.

Excavations

First excavations by the Landesmuseum Wiesbaden were undertaken
in the years 1906-09 and 1912. Ritterling and Brenner conducted these
excavations. Trenches through the banks revealed almost
everywhere a pointed ditch in front of the bank5,
but the inner
structure of the banks remained unclear
(Dehn, 1986; )Reeh, 2001).
Excavations at the Schulborn encountered two phases of the wooden
lining, which also had different orientations. A model of them was
constructed by the museum of Wiesbaden.
The Grinchesweiher contained wooden structures similar to the ones
observed in the Schulborn
(Dehn, 1986). Besides these two major
water reservoirs other springs
and cisterns were excavated, which displayed the same kind of wooden linings
(Reeh, 2001).
Finally several platforms were examined, revealing their artificial nature,
posthole settings and drystone walls
(Dehn, 1986; Reeh, 2001).
In 1916 a plaster model of the Dünsberg with its ramparts was
built in the Landesmuseum Wiesbaden. Unfortunately it was not very
accurate on behalf of the banks (Dehn, 1986; Reeh, 2001). Otherwise
no publication followed
the excavations, and some of the records were lost during the two
World Wars. This and the fact that the excavation standards were not
very good in these times makes the remaining records almost useless
for modern research.

In 1951 a cremation was found 50 m outside the ramparts of the Dünsberg
to the east. It dates to La Tène D1, the urn contained (besides the
human remains) two broaches, parts of a chain and a ring
(Schlott, 1999; Jacobi, 1977).
Dehn assumes that this is not an isolated grave but rather part of a
bigger, so far not excavated, cemetery6.

In 1965 trenches for cables were cut, the finds made during this period
are only partly published (Schlott, 1999).

Preceding the construction of the television and radio tower a
rescue excavation on top of the Dünsberg was undertaken in 1974. An
abundant amount of Late
Bronze Age pottery and a bronze hammer were found, but no structures.
Still it is likely
that there was a habitation site of this period on top of the
hill (Dehn, 1986; Jacobi, 1977) . Only a preliminary report of
these excavations was published
(Schlott, 1999).

In 1977 once more trenches for cables were installed on the Dünsberg.
The trenches passing through the banks did hardly yield any new information.
Only the topmost wall (banks w-y) seemed to be constructed of wood and
rubble, while the others displayed no noticeable structure at all
(Dehn, 1986; Janke, 1981).

Since 1999 further excavations have been carried out under the
supervision of Rittershofer. So far two trenches have been opened, cutting through
the bottommost wall (bank g, see figure Dünsberg Map),
covering an area in front of gate 7.
Perpendicular to this the second trench cuts through one of the
Strahlenwälle (M)
(Rittershofer, 1999).
Some of the inner structures of the
banks could be revealed. Interestingly two phases could be
demonstrated for the rampart near gate 7, and the assumption of a
battlefield in front of the same gate could be
verified
(Rittershofer, 2000)7.
In addition
to that some occupational remains behind bank g, inside the oppidum,
were discovered
(Nickel, 2001).

Early Interpretations

Certainly the earliest interpretation for the fortification on the
Dünsberg was given in 1613 (Reeh, 2001: 50),
where it is said
that the Dünsberg is the site of a

Settlement features

In the following the numbers and letters for the gates, ramparts
and Strahlenwälle are according to figure
Dünsberg Map.
A table showing the differing nomenclatures for the gates can be found
in appendix Nomenclature.

The three mentioned plans can be seen in appendix
Plans,
for easier comparison.

Ramparts

The ramparts consist of tree concentric rings, each of them being
composed of the actual bank and a ditch in front of it. They also
display a trough on the inside from where material for the
construction of the wall has been taken
(Dehn, 1958; Reeh, 2001)8.

Generally it is assumed that the topmost rampart must be the oldest,
inspired by the Late Bronze Age material retrieved on the top of the
hill, the first phase of construction of the rampart is generally
assigned to this period (i.e. around
800 BC) (Herrmann, 2000; Rittershofer, 2001). The
middling rampart is assigned to the time of
500 BC9, while
the bottommost rampart dates to the Late La Tène period.

Topmost rampartbanks w-y

The banks w-y seem to be the best preserved of the three rings. Their
height is still 6-8 m on the outside. On the inside the hill is marked by
a huge depression from which material for the wall has been taken
(Dehn, 1958). The
wall must have consisted of the local stone which was filled in to a
wooden frame. Reeh states that the length of the bank is
1010 m and calculates the volume of the wall to be about 505000 m3.
Traces of where a fire destroyed the wooden structures can
be seen superficially in the northwest
(Dehn, 1958; Janke, 1981).
Janke describes the inner structure of the rampart as
follows:

The construction described could be of the Preist-Altkönig type,
at least this was my assumption when creating the model.

Gates 21-23:

While Dehn sees only two original gates
(22 and 23) in the topmost circle,
Reeh observed three gates (21-23).
Dehn
emphasizes gate 23, which consists of overlapping ramparts forming the entrance.
The southern end
is higher and more massive than the other one, making the whole entrance
appear higher. Reeh refers to gate
22 as a simple gap but
highlights the fact that a ramp had been built to give easier access to
the gate10. The entrance 21 is shallower and thinner than
the other two gates. Instead of a 3 m deep cut through the rampart it
is only 1.4 m deep. The gap between the parapets on either side is
only 11.2 m, which is 2 m less than for the other
entrances11. Nevertheless
Reeh is convinced that this entrance is necessary for
access to the Schulborn and he mentions traces of a path leading from
gate 19 up to gate 21.

Middling rampartbanks o-s

The enclosed area is 21 ha, the length of the ramparts 2308 m. An
average hight of 6.1 m with a volume of 62100 m3 is estimated by
Reeh.
The banks follow more or less the shape of the hill, including a
plateau-like extension in the east. Dehn
thinks that this
plateau might not have been included into the middling rampart originally,
and that the banks t,
u and v could be the remnants of the former layout12.
After having visited this part myself, I would rather say that this is
unlikely. First t, u and v are very shallow ramparts in comparison to
o-s, and then bank p would have to bridge over a very steep slope
to join up with bank v. In all other places the ramparts approximately
follow the isolines.

According to Reeh banks t, u and v are only 0.6 m high
and 175 m long with
two gates (19 and 20). Dehn observed only banks u and
v, together with their gate 20.

East of gate 14 bank o makes a sharp bend leading uphill and then
downhill again. There is also a small bank sticking out in the
direction of the Schulborn. Dehn initially assumed that
this might be the remainder of a rampart leading down to the
Schulborn and enclosing it within the fortification. Reeh
on the other hand mentions that after surveying this area he could
find neither any traces of banks nor of levelling work undertaken there.

In the excavation reports from 1907 it is
mentioned that at one part of the rampart the 4 m wide pointed ditch displayed two
points (Verwaltungsbericht, 1907).
The banks were again clearly layered,
but no further features could be observed
(Janke, 1981).

Gates 14-20:

While Reeh sees six gates in the middling rampart
Dehn counts only four of them.

Gate 14 is a simple gap in the defence, a short distance from the
Schulborn (Reeh, 2001). Gate 15
appears on Dehn's plan
(Dehn, 1958)
as having one end of the rampart turned inwardslike a Zangentor,
neither Reeh, nor I have seen this when visiting the site.
Instead Reeh proposes that this is yet again a simple, gap-like
gate.

Gate 16 is emphasized by Reeh, because he thinks that the
right side of the gate is flattened out. I had the impression that the
ends of the rampart were turned inwards. This was pronounced on the northern
side of the gate, in the south the marks were much shallower.

The left side of gate 17 was built higher than the right
(Reeh, 2001).
The next gate mentioned by Reeh is not on the
figure Dünsberg Map. He assumes that this is rather a
modern gap than an original gate. Gate 18 is also not certain, and
Reeh
seems rather inclined to call it a gate out of the necessity to have
a gate to the west rather than being really convinced by the features in the
landscape.

While gates 19 and 20 are not further mentioned by Reeh,
Herrmann describes gate 20 as a gate with overlapping
ends.

Bottommost rampartbanks a-n

These ramparts enclose an area of about 90 ha
(Dehn, 1958), the Kleine Dünsberg
in the northwest is incorporated into the walls, which gives them a
length of 3628 m. Dehn suggested that
maybe the original
plan was to incorporate the Hinteren Eulenkopf into the fortification
as well, but concedes that the two banks leading towards it might also
be counted to the
Strahlenwälle.

The construction of this bank is known in greatest
detail through the excavations in 1999-2001. The construction follows
roughly the Kelheim type. The main difference is that no drystone
walling was used for the front, only few stones have been found so
far, which were situated in the lower parts of the walling, otherwise
the front seems to have been made up by condensed slate rubble
intermixed with loam (Nickel, 2001).
The second difference is that
we have clear indications of the anchorage for the palisade-like front.
Every second upright beam is held by three smaller beams which acted as anchors.
The anchors were clearly visible in the field as they were preserved
as hollows, which would connect with the palisade beam at an angle
of 63 degrees. The front of the wall was slightly leaning inwards
(similar to the walls at Kelheim
(Leicht, 2000))13.

The rubble and earth inside the wall appear layered, the beams on
the face of the wall were about 50 cm in diameter, the anchors about
20 cm. At the place of the excavation, two phases were visible.
Remnants of the first wall are visible further to the north, its 2 m
deep ditch was at a later stage filled up and in its place the new
wall was built (Rittershofer, 1999).
The latest results show that
the course of the second wall in relation to the first has been changed:
while in the first phase the
ditch was running northwest to southeast, the second wall runs from
west to east. Further excavations would be necessary to see the
dimensions of the change in course
(Nickel, 2001). In the second
phase the wall does not have a ditch in front of it
(Nickel, 2001).

Gates 1-13:

Reeh recognizes thirteen gates, while
Dehn counts
seven, even though he regards gate 9 as a possible location for an eighth
one. According to Dehn gates 1, 2, 5 and 8 are gates
with overlapping ends, often with one end being raised and more
massive in build (similar to
gates 23 and 17), while 7, 10 and possibly 13 are Zangentore.
Reeh describes gate 1 as a gate with
overlapping ends,
the western side is 1.4 m higher than the other. He also proposes a
second entrance, which he calls gate 1a, which is 38 m
to the west of gate 1 and of the simple gap type.

Gate 2 is a wide opening. The eastern side of the overlapping ends is
6 m higher than the western side and also considerably more massive
(Reeh, 2001).
Gates 3 and 4 are simple gaps
(Reeh, 2001), both were not recognized by
Dehn. Another gate with overlapping ends is gate 5, here
the southern side is 3 m higher and more massive than the northern
(Reeh, 2001).
Gate 6 is once more a simple gap, but gate 7 is a true Zangentor, as
already mentioned by Dehn. According to
Reeh
the ramparts turn in funnel-like to form the gate structure, this
would mean that we have a Type 2 Zangentor after
van Endert.

Gate 8 has the form of overlapping ends, with the eastern end raised
1.9 m above the western (Reeh, 2001).
One of the most interesting gates
is gate 9. The ramparts swing outwards before turning in
funnel-like to form the gate. This is also a quite outstanding feature
in the rampart14
on the survey-plan produced by the FH-Frankfurt in 198415
(see figure Platforms and Ramparts).
On the other
hand the short bank in front of this gate (Strahlenwall Q), as
described by Reeh, was not observed in this survey. Gate 10 has a
similar outline to gate 9 concerning its outward swinging ends which
then form the gate structures. It clearly belongs to the type 2
Zangentoren. Gate 11 is marked as a gate by the FH-Frankfurt,
but was not considered by Dehn.
Reeh
describes it as a simple gap in the rampart, the same accounts for gate 12.

Gate 13 is described by Reeh as a simple
gap, while
Dehn regards it as a possible candidate
for a Zangentor.
In this case I would go with Dehn's interpretation even though the
situation is very difficult to judge, because this area is
derogated
by the modern road leading past it.

simple gap

overlapping ends

Zangentor

topmost rampart

22, 21

23

middling rampart

19, 18, 16?, 15(Reeh), 14

20, 17

16?, 15(Dehn)

bottommost rampart

13(Reeh), 12, 11, 6, 4, 3, 1a

8, 5, 2, 1

13?(Dehn), 10, 9, 7

Total

11 (14)

7

3 (6)

Overview of the gate types

Strahlenwälle

One of the most prominent features of the site are the banks
enclosing the Grinchesweiher. Dehn is convinced that
these
banks belong to two phases. The older one consists of walls H and D,
which are meant to be L-shaped, the younger banks E and I cross the
older banks southeast of the Grinchesweiher. While banks E and D
are almost parallel, F and G leave a wide gap. They are 125 m apart
when they finally join the main wall. The total area
enclosed by these banks and the bottommost wall amounts to 3.5 ha
(Reeh, 2001). A further bank (F)
stretches for 50 m along the the stream, which
is fed by the Grinchesweiher and several other springs in its
vicinity. Perpendicular to it, coming from the northeast, are two
further banks: C and G, which appear to be associated with F but do
not join up with it.

The Strahlenwälle A and B lead from the southwest to the
northeast. They start at gate 1 and 2 respectively and lead to nearby
springs16.

Bank J does not start at a gate, but it leads to and possibly through
an area with several springs17. The survey-map of the
FH-Frankfurt shows J linked up with bank N, which leads together with
banks M, f and e to a completely enclosed area (see figure
Platforms and Ramparts).
This area is free of
platforms (Reeh, 2001),
so it was probably not used for living.
Strahlenwall K is L-shaped and follows one of the streams near
bank J.

Close to gate 7 two Strahlenwälle have their beginning: L
and M. L runs from the northwest to the southeast, while M extends to
the southwest. In its lower half M is adjoined to N, which has a
course from northwest to the southeast. Further south of N and M
Strahlenwall O begins, it is leading from the northeast to the
southwest.
Strahlenwall P is only on the map of the FH-Frankfurt
(see figure Platforms and Ramparts), it is
situated south of g running from northwest to the southeast.
Strahlenwall Q was already mentioned in relation to gate 9. It is very
short and blocking the entrance to gate 9 from the east
(Reeh, 2001).
Extending towards the Hinteren Eulenkopf are the
Strahlenwälle R and S, their common source lies near gate 10.
They are not only blocking the entrance to gate 11 from the south, but
they also enclose springs and seem to embrace the Hinteren
Eulenkopf from two sides. This is an area which is rich in iron ores
and was largely exploited during the middle ages and in modern
times (Reeh, 2001).
Strahlenwall T begins close to gate 13
and then follows the line of bank l. On Dehn's (1958: plate 29) plan
the bank swings to the northwest, but on Reeh's (2001: 54) map
the bank appears to follow the shape of the Kleinen Dünsberg to
the northwest. The survey of the FH-Frankfurt loses the bank
while it is still close to bank l18.

Strahlenwall U is quite short but it seems to point from bank m
towards a spring in the north.

Coming from the Schulborn a short Strahlenwall (V) follows the
stream to the north, while Strahlenwall W begins near the
Schulborn in the west and runs towards Strahlenwall A.

Reeh generally thinks that the
Strahlenwälle had
defensive purposes, only the area enclosed by f, M, N and J is
thought to be an enclosed meadow, while Q, L and S might have been
used to help bringing cattle into the oppidum.

Sources of water

Some of the sources of water inside or close to the oppidum were
already mentioned. They are the Grinchesweiher, the Schulborn and
several springs in the vicinity (see
\ref{subsec:springs).

In his second part of the book he just mentions one cistern to the
south of the summit. Another supposable cistern is between the highest rampart
and the middling rampart in the south. Reeh also
identifies a cistern at the outer edge of bank t, and another one just
in front of gate 13. None of these presumable cisterns has been
excavated, and we cannot be sure what they really are. Especially in
the case of the cistern in front of gate 13 caution should be taken,
because this is not the ideal place for a cistern, as it would block
the passage19.

Platforms

Both Reeh and the FH-Frankfurt map show some of the
platforms on the Dünsberg, but both are
incomplete20.
Together they
record about 800 platforms, which are mainly situated between top and bottom
rampart21.
Concentrations of occupation can be found in the east and south between the
middling and the bottommost rampart, almost no platforms are on the
Kleinen Dünsberg, in the area between gate 1 and gate 2 and on the
top of the hill22. It is also remarkable
that many platforms are located
outside the ramparts, especially in the west and near the
Grinchesweiher (Reeh, 2001).

Very little has been published about the excavations of some of the platforms
undertaken in 1912. Bremer mentioned the excavations and
that La Tène pottery and metal artefacts were found, but only one
of the excavated platforms could be identified, which is in the east
of the oppidum(Reeh, 2001).
Further information about the
excavations comes from Schumacher, who mentions that platforms in the
south and west of the Dünsberg have been excavated, revealing
posts of square huts, and drystone walls
(Reeh, 2001). The platforms
were formed by cutting into the hill on one side and using the rubble
to extend the terrace on the other. The platforms have a slope of 60 cm
to 1 m from one side to the other, thus enabling drainage after
rainfall (Reeh, 2001).

During the excavation in 2001 another platform was cut. It had not
been visible from the surface, but three postholes, ceramics, fired clay
and charcoal made it clear that this must have been a habitation site.
Besides that a trench for drainage of the platform could be discovered
(Nickel, 2001).

Development of the site

The archaeological work and some of the surveys
23 undertaken have been
described in the previous sections. Additional finds were made
illegally with metal detectors and some of these collections could be
accessed by researchers.

The oldest find from the Dünsberg is a sherd dating to about
3500 BC (Michelsberger Culture), but a settlement in this
time is improbable (Dehn, 1986; Bender, 1999). The same accounts
for the Bronze Age, to which a
wheel-headed pin dates (Jacobi, 1977).
The first real settlement phase accounted for
by abundant finds is the Late Bronze Age (Urnfield Culture). At that
time the top of the hill must have been occupied, pottery and two
copper axes have been found 24. Generally the
construction of the first rampart is assigned to this period, even
though there is no excavation data to support this view
(Dehn, 1986; Jacobi, 1977), but it can
be said that hillforts in
this time were no uncommon settlement type
(Jacobi, 1977).

The finds dating to the Hallstatt period consist of a few sherds of
pottery only, no metal finds have been made so far. It is certainly
questionable, whether the site was occupied in this period at
all (Dehn, 1986).

The second settlement phase began in La Tène B2. The finds are
concentrated on the eastern spur of the hill, which is enclosed by
the middling rampart (Jacobi, 1977).
Further finds are
situated near gate 8 (Schlott, 1999).
It is assumed that the
second rampart belongs to this phase, making the Dünsberg part of
the Early La Tène settlements,
which are common sites from the Mittelgebirge to Bohemia, i.e. the
first oppida(Jacobi, 1977).
It is also thought that mining and
iron smelting were important features
for the oppida in this time, giving them an economic basis
(Jacobi, 1977).
While Jacobi proceeds on the assumption that the
Dünsberg was settled continuously from La Tène B2
onwards 25,
Dehn believes that the hill was occupied anew in La
Tène C2.

The bottommost wall was certainly begun in La Tène C2 and from this
time on the oppidum flourished. The Grinchesweiher and the Schulborn
were incorporated into the fortification
(Dehn, 1986), and the
settlement area was extended to outside the boundaries of the
ramparts (Jacobi, 1977; Reeh, 2001). Finds from this period
include imported bronze vessels, tools and weapons. Iron production
and processing took place (Jacobi, 1977).
Through the tools we know that different
crafts were carried out and also agricultural tasks
(Jacobi, 1977; Schlott, 1999). Interesting is
the great amount of weapons found on the site
(Schlott, 1999).

Two questions were and are still discussed. One is the relation of
Celtic and Germanic finds on the D\"unsberg and the second is the end
of its occupation.
Different interpretations have been offered:

Schlott mentions that in
1917 Anthes thought that the
Dünsberg was still occupied in Roman times.
In 1930 Kutsch concluded that
the Dünsberg was one
site in a line of Germanic fortifications against the Romans, finally,
with Domitian, the settlement found its end. A thesis
which has been dismissed by Dehn,
on grounds of missing
finds from the site to support it.
Dehn himself held the opinion
that there was no proof for
continuing occupation on the site during the first century AD.
He emphasizes the Celtic finds, but mentions that there is also
Germanic pottery present at the site.
Jacobi states that

Taking the Roman finds as an indication he argues that the settlement
could have not existed after the campaign of Drusus against the
Chatti, especially as only 30 km away Drusus constructed the Roman
fort of Rödgen.

Schlott criticizes Jacobi
for not taking into account
that some of the weapons date to La Tène D1 and others to D2, but
otherwise agrees with his hypothesis.

Other critical voices have been raised.
Schlott mentions
Polenz, who claimed that no settlement continuity was needed, and that
the Roman finds could date to later times.
Mildenberger comes to the
conclusion that the weapons dating to La
Tène D1 belong to a conflict between Celts and Germans, and that
in D2 another conflict between Germans and Romans took place.
Schlott also mentions the
interpretation of Spehr, who
thinks that the weapons do not represent the remainders of a battle,
but are indeed remnants of ritual actions.

Schlott himself points
out that there are two possible
reasons for the concurrence of Celtic and Germanic finds on the
Dünsberg. One explanation would be that the Celtic occupation
comes to an end at the end of La Tène D1, and later Germanic
settlers from the Elbe region arrive. The other possibility would be
that no hiatus occurred, but that the Celtic population mixed
with Germans from the north. Schlott obviously assumes that no
battle took place between Celts and Germans.

Schlott also gives new information on coins found on the
Dünsberg and the neighbouring Heidetränkoppidum. Both sites
are the centers for a special coin type 26.
The coin distributions almost exclude each
other, and Schlott wonders whether this might be taken as a proof for a Celtic
settlement in the Heidetränkoppidum, and a Germanic population on
the Dünsberg.

Generally the end of the occupation on the Dünsberg in
10/9 BC has now been acknowledged, especially after the
recent excavations on the battlefield in front of gate 7
(Herrmann, 2000; Rittershofer, 2000; Rittershofer, 1999). The
exact relations between Celtic and Germanic occupation remain
unclear.

The here outlined previous research outlined here gave a sufficient
grounding for some of the reconstruction, but still further correlates were
necessary to built a coherent model, as will be seen in chapter
Methodology.

1 Grave garden

2 12 to 14
burial mounds immediately south of
the Dünsberg have been completely destroyed by ploughing in the
early 19th century. They are not included in this number.

3 This was after the
defeat of the Roman army in the Teuteburger Forest (i.e.
Kalkriese).

5 In
case of the middling rampart (banks o-s) the ditch had two points
(Reeh, 2001: 79).

6 As mentioned before,
in the Late La Tène small dispersed cemeteries are the rule (see
section La Tène).

7 The
great amount of
germanic/celtic and roman weapons and chariot parts found in this region
strongly speak for a battlefield
(see also Schlott, 1999).
Unfortunately the soil is too aggressive for bones to be preserved, but
several horse's teeth have been found.

8 Most
of the more recent descriptions and articles
of the Dünsberg like Dehn,
Bender,
Schlott and
Herrmann are actually based on
the description by Dehn.
Reeh
delivers an independent account, but is not an archaeologist by
training.

9 I do not see a reason for this as allegedly
there are very few finds from this period.

10 This has already been mentioned in the excavation
reports from 1906-12.

11 The terrain in this region is also very steep,
which would make it rather difficult to enter.

12 This is one of
the assumptions which gets more and more certain the more often it
is repeated by other authors throughout the literature, even though
the statement was quite carefully phrased by Dehn in the beginning.

13 In my
reconstruction I assumed that a facing of wood (or wattle) would be
necessary to give the front the necessary strength, even though no
finds which would support this theory were made. Known examples of
ramparts with wooden fronts are the Staffelberg, Bern-Engehalbinsel,
Limberg and the Kegelriß
(Leicht, 2000: 137-138).

14 The form of the gate is marked quite
accurately on the plan by the FH-Frankfurt, but is not shown as a gate.

15 This
plan is so far unpublished.

16 The length of Strahlenwall B is 125 m.

17 In the plan the
letter J denotes
the banks north and south of the spring area.

18 I took the freedom to
extend the line of this bank in figure
Platforms and Ramparts, being
guided by Reeh's drawing. To view the original plans refer to
appendix Plans.

19 What springs to mind is the pit in
front of the eastern
gate in Manching (see Endert, 1987).

22Reeh (p. 107)
mentions a comment by O.
Vuge, which points out, that on the top of the hill was a fort in
1759. Further destruction through the modern buildings on top of the
hill can be assumed.

23 Besides the
surveys undertaken by Reeh, others preceded the excavations in 1999.
A geomagnetic prospection helped to determine the most promising areas
for the excavation, and data from boreholes has been assembled. In
2001 the FH-Frankfurt undertook a survey exercise in a corridor from
the top of the hill down to the excavation site, in which more
borehole samples were taken. Some of the platforms sketched by
Reeh were revisited. (Rittershofer personal comment
and Nickel.)

24Jacobi
assumes that at this
time metalworking took place on the Dünsberg.

25 Even though he mentions that it is not clear how
many finds really date in to the Middle La Tène period, Jacobi is
convinced that the Dünsbergin contrast to other hillforts in
the area, which break off at the end of La Tène B2has a settlement
continuity.

26 Forrer 352 is found
in the Heidetränkoppidum, while Forrer 351/351a has its greatest
density on the Dünsberg.